Alternative statutory remedy remains discretionary in writ proceedings; participation in reassessment can justify refusal to entertain the petition.

Availability of an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but a matter of judicial discretion. Where the assessee received notice, participated through an authorised representative, and gave no satisfactory explanation for bypassing the statutory appeal against reassessment orders, the writ court may properly decline interference. The cited precedent was distinguished on its facts and was not treated as laying down a general rule that an admitted writ must always be decided on merits despite maintainability concerns. On these facts, refusal to entertain the writ petition was upheld and the challenge to the reassessment and appellate orders failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of maintainability for non-exhaustion of the statutory remedy and acceptance of the appellate order.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, but a matter of judicial discretion. The Court found that the reassessment proceedings were preceded by notice, that the petitioner had participated through an authorised representative, and that no satisfactory explanation was offered for not pursuing the statutory appeal against the reassessment orders. The Court distinguished the cited precedent on its facts and held that it did not lay down a general rule that a writ petition, once admitted, must necessarily be decided on merits irrespective of maintainability. On the facts, the exercise of discretion by the single judge in declining to entertain the writ petition was found to be proper.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entitled to be entertained on merits and the challenge to the reassessment and appellate orders failed.

Final Conclusion: The discretionary refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction was upheld, and the intra-court appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies remains a rule of prudence and discretion in writ proceedings, and a writ court may decline interference where the petitioner has participated in the proceedings and shown no satisfactory basis to bypass the statutory remedy.

---